posted
A search on google news for record gasoline prices gets 15,000 hits.
I have heard nothing to the effect that Beach Grove is working overtime in the bone yard for more equipment for this summer.
With gas prices approaching $4 already in early March, Amtrak could see a summer crunch like it has never seen before.
Mike Smith Member # 447
posted
You are assuming the speculation bubble will not burst between now & then. It is highly likely that prices will fall before summer. Our oil stockpiles and gas stockpiles are full; the only things fueling this price hike are the oil speculators.
Also, if our idiot congress critters would actually do something beneficial for us, we could have a real energy policy that allows drilling in ANWR, off the coast of Florida, in the shale oil fields of the west and a relaxing of the onerous EPA restrictions on new refineries.
Awww who am I kidding... Congress .. doing something for the common people? Never gonna happen...
Gilbert B Norman Member # 1541
posted
Prediction: #3 and #5 will still pass my home this summer with the usual consist of three Coaches and two Sleepers.
Only change from last year is that the equipment has suffered one more year with less than required maintenance AND the fares will be considerably higher.
Doc Brown Member # 4724
posted
$4 in early March? Where do you live? Its $3.19 here. Early May I think we'll see $4, probably anyway.
You may see some increase in ridership, but I doubt it'll be enough to warrant extra equipment. Most people already have thier plans. A few extra bucks for gas simply means that vacationers will eat less expensive meals and buy less trinkets. I have a travel trailer and frequent RV.net. No one there says anything about giving up. Driving fewer miles, making other adjustments, yes. Dropping plans altogether, no. Being that driving without a trailer is significantly cheaper, I'd say most road trips will go on as planned.
I read somewhere an educated prediction that travel will not slow significantly until the price hits the $6 gal range. Not sure how accurate that is, but I know that for my purposes, even $5 is not going to prevent me from camping. $6 will just keep us in our own state.
Doc Brown Member # 4724
posted
quote:Originally posted by Mike Smith: You are assuming the speculation bubble will not burst between now & then. It is highly likely that prices will fall before summer. Our oil stockpiles and gas stockpiles are full; the only things fueling this price hike are the oil speculators.
Hmm...
Thats an interesting thought. For many years experts predicted the housing boom was going to blow, and blow it did. With a vengence. In my neighborhood, houses that once sold in less than a day now sit on the market for a year or more. The difference is that the speculators can keep the price artificially high. But you may have something about the bubble bursting. I wonder how long they can sustain this?
Geoff M Member # 153
posted
Don't mention airline fuel surcharges to Amtrak. They might get ideas.
Geoff M.
4021North Member # 4081
posted
Here is an article that I think merits attention. In short, "The recent small increase in gas prices relative to income is fairly insignificant."
posted
The trouble is that is a 3 year old article. While the argument can be made that gas prices adjusted for inflation aren't that bad, consider that in '05 I paid an average of $2.20 a gal on a trip to CA and back. As high as $2.50 in CA, and as low as $1.90 in WY. Prices this summer are expected to be almost double that. Thats quite a hike in a 3 year time span, very significant, IMO. If gas prices followed a gradual climb over the years, no one would bat an eye lash. But because such a short time span, it's noticable.
amtraksupporter Member # 5619
posted
Noteworthy article today on Reuters: "Mass transit use hits 50-year high on pump prices"
posted
I quote from the gas article: "Today, it takes less than 7% of our disposable income to buy 1,000 gallons of gas at the current $2.10 a gallon. The "cheap" gas of the '60s and '70s cost about 12% as a share of income." So if we were to double the price to, say, $4.20, then the gas would cost 14% of one's disposable income, assuming no change in income. That's in line with the above 12%, and in fact less than half of the 1930s figure. So I really couldn't agree that the article is any less relevant today.
amtraksupporter Member # 5619
posted
doc brown said:
quote: $4 in early March? Where do you live? Its $3.19 here. Early May I think we'll see $4, probably anyway.
posted
One "stunt" that the airlines are likely to start pulling 'big time' is the "lack of interest cancellation".
This practice has long been in the playbook, but since a flight's break even load factor, considering increased fuel costs, is likely approaching 80%, if they do not see bookings on a flight or its reciprocal, i.e. the flight returning the equipment, that flight could well be cancelled.
In short, best hope your flight is fully booked, or you may end up not flying at all.
Since Amtrak is no longer an option for me on my Chicago to New York journeys, something tells me I will be seeing a bit more of aircraft cabins than I have in the recent past.
smitty195 Member # 5102
posted
quote:Originally posted by Mike Smith: Also, if our idiot congress critters would actually do something beneficial for us, we could have a real energy policy that allows drilling in ANWR, off the coast of Florida, in the shale oil fields of the west and a relaxing of the onerous EPA restrictions on new refineries.
Don't forget about Mexico. There are ENORMOUS amounts of oil in Mexico. Why are we not receiving oil from Mexico to help subsidize all of the illegal aliens in the USA? The costs for medical and prison care, among others, are astronomical to the average taxpayer.
amtraksupporter Member # 5619
posted
This summer is beginning to look like we could have a national transportation meltdown, with thousands of people asking where is the train.
Check out "US: Hundreds of aging American Airlines planes grounded for inspection"
The laxity of air line maintenance that prompted this particular grounding could happen again with some other problem. Suppose an accident like the one described in the article in Okinawa happened with a plane in flight and required another shutdown. I heard some stories on talk radio of people on canceled flights who have had to wait three and four days for an available seat on a flight to another destination.
This article describes another problem of the airlines: they are not updating equipment as it wares out and their prices do not reflect inevitable replacement.
We all know of about the problems with the 30- year old computers in the air control system.
The airlines are now showing the neglect of under investment that we have long seen with Amtrak. Fixing Amtrak is beginning to look like the least expensive way out intercity transportation problems.
sfthunderchief Member # 7204
posted
Gas prices tumble?, awwwh come on, you know, "prices are up because we lack refining capacity" or, "the gas companies don't have the summer blend in quantity", or, "there was a tanker-cruise ship collision somewhere so prices are up", or, " a flood affecting a refinery in Coffeetown, Kansas," or, "President Bush has decided to push ahead with the Mars mission, this time by the year 2019." Every excuse is used to explain high gasoline prices.
And we quibble about the economics of long distance sleeper and dining car service.
smitty195 Member # 5102
posted
The air traffic control computers are not 30 years old. I think you've been reading too much propaganda. That's one of the problems of "information" so readily available at our fingertips with the internet. You need to remember that just because you read it on the internet, that doesn't mean it's true.
The ATC system in the USA definitely needs upgrading and changing (such as using GPS and TCAS, among other things, to create free flight instead of jet routes). But the computers are NOT 30 years old! Come on now, think about what you just said.......Were you even alive 30 years ago? If you were, think what the computers were like back then. Geez! The Apple Macintosh computer wasn't launched until 1984, so just imagine if the ATC computers in use today were actually 30 years old----as in 1978. Trust me dude, they are not 30 years old.
amtraxmaniac Member # 2251
posted
I don't think it has as much do do with age of the equipment as it does inefficiency of the ATC system. The equipment may be brand spanking new, but we're operating on a system that was not inteneded to handle the amount of traffic it does. The number of airlines in existance has exploded over the last decade and the number of departures and arrivals have (don't pin point me with specific data) probably about doubled. Air traffic has steadily increased over the years since deregulation. The old ATC system is just too inefficient. It has nothing to do with the actual AGE.
Which poses this IMPORTANT question: how much would it cost to improve the ATC system (or completely overhaul it) compared to investing in passenger rail AND more imoportantly investing in HIGH SPEED RAIL? Can the costs be comparable?
Henry Kisor Member # 4776
posted
For a very good, nuanced analysis of what's clogging our skies, Patrick Smith, the airline pilot who is the author of the "Ask the Pilot" blog on Salon.com, offers the following:
Note his remarks about the explosion in the number of light jetliners.
PullmanCo Member # 1138
posted
Amtrak has to live in a budget. That includes their shops. If you want Beech Grove to have more capacity, ask your Congresscritter to appropriate $$$ specifically for equipment repair and return to service:
It is time for Ross Capon and NARP to write a letter to Alexander Kummant and ask what he is doing to get extra equipment for this summer.
From what I hear, there is some, though not a lot of, equipment Amtrak could add if it started work now.
notelvis Member # 3071
posted
quote:Originally posted by smitty195: The air traffic control computers are not 30 years old. I think you've been reading too much propaganda. Come on now, think about what you just said.......Were you even alive 30 years ago? If you were, think what the computers were like back then. Geez!
Granted that the computers are not 30 years old BUT do you remember the PATCO strike when Ronald Reagan fired all the Air Traffic Controllers and replacements were hired?
That was what, 26, 27 years ago now? Point being that in the next few years the REPLACEMENT air traffic controllers still around from back then are going to be retiring en masse. Are there enough qualified replacements?
Just wanted to raise the question.
George Harris Member # 2077
posted
quote:Originally posted by Henry Kisor: Note his remarks about the explosion in the number of light jetliners.
Complaints about corporate jets, private planes, etc. are a standard airline attitude. The airline companies seem to feel that they are the real owners of airports and the air traffic control system, not the US taxpayer, so therefore these other users of the skys should be limited for the convenience of the airlines.
Sorry, no sale.
The biggest problem with the wonders of low price airlines is they we are getting what we pay for. The system is unsustainable but while it is going on it is warping the whole transport picture.
Henry Kisor Member # 4776
posted
George, I did not use the correct term: instead of "light jetliners" I should have said the more precise "regional jets" (which that Ask the Pilot column did). This is not a problem of airline attitudes -- the airlines themselves are flying those regional jets, which clog the gates at big airports everywhere.
Otherwise . . . I am a private pilot and aircraft owner myself, and agree that the airlines crap on us little guys way too much.
amtraksupporter Member # 5619
posted
That national transportation infrastructure breakdown continues:
"American Airlines cancels as many as 500 flights"
posted
"American Airlines cancels as many as 500 flights" This is due to a flaw discovered with some wire bundling in the wheel wells of AA's MD 80's. The airline has known about this and fluffed off on it untill the FAA was up there plumbing over it. Thank Southwest Airlines and their recent FAA troubles for what's happening at American...complex story so I won't elaborate... but we are starting to see the demise of smaller airlines with now Frontier filing for bankruptcy..
This all could spell a GOLDEN opportunity for Amtrak if Beech Grove gets it together and get some additional rolling stock in working order.
Oh...more bad news....word has gotten out that American Airlines has NO LEGAL OBLIGATION to compensate these passengers stranded as a result of cancelled flights. Per AP, they ONLY have a legal obligation to compensate passengers if they are BUMPED from a flight because of overbooking.
Jay Leno told a joke last night I had to chuckle over. He quipped(paraphrased) 'more anti american protests today....and that was just at American's terminals'.
All scary...but a PRIME opportunity for Amtrak to step to the plate.
4021North Member # 4081
posted
quote:Originally posted by amtraxmaniac: ...a PRIME opportunity for Amtrak to step to the plate.
Yes. Now if only they had real political power behind them as they step up to the plate. If I were President of the United States I would do my best to that end. I would try to put more trains into service.
amtraxmaniac Member # 2251
posted
Well, Pullman I've been following your advise and writing to my congress critters and here's my report:
US Senators (CA) Barbara Boxer(Dem): emailed 3/22-still no response.
Diane Feinstein (Dem): emailed and snail mailed on 3/25-no response on either.
House of Representatives
Representative Kevin McCarthy (Rep): "Service should be primarily financed at the state level." 'Amtrak equates to pork barrell spending.' 'Amtrak's been a complete failure since its inception'. 'Money would be better spend improving our roads and interstate system.' I'm HOPING this was written by some third level aid as well.
So the Democrats in my area can care less and the Republicans in my area want to kill it.
Gilbert B Norman Member # 1541
posted
It would appear no State has matched California in the scope of its local initiative. I'm certain the Golden State wins in any measurement such as "locally supported passenger train miles per capita'.
When one considers that on A-Day "all there was" comprised a tri-weekly "Starlight" SEA-SD , a four weekly "Daylight" OAK-LA, Tri Weekly Zephyr, Sunset, a Daily Chief, and "two a day" LA-SD. The Peninsula commuter service was of course there as it had been for 100 some years, but LA Metrolink simply 'wasn't".
So it matters not Rep. McCarthy's (R-22nd-CA) position regarding the passenger train issue, as Californians themselves have "stepped up to the plate". Result: a reasonably comprehensive and patronized system operating trains and co-ordinated busses where needed (SOCAL) - and not where there is no need for such (NOCAL). Obviously, the Legislature has properly contained initiatives such as "Why can't we have a train to Portola?" or along the NWP, and they are to be commended for such.
amtraxmaniac Member # 2251
posted
But we're talking about a NATIONAL rail network. Not Corridor trains. Of course its silly to take up the question of 'why can't there be a train to Portola'. But can you say in HONEST Mr Norman that we can do without trains from Oakland to Chicago that STOP in Portola (in this case Martinez, CA)? That's were LD's hold there proper place. They connect small town America to big city America. Us smaller market towns deserve options too...we shouldn't all have to DRIVE 100 miles to access air service. To say that LD trains don't have their place in the transportation picture is short sighted.
amtraksupporter Member # 5619
posted
From the AP:
Summer travel headaches loom as airlines' woes deepen
Higher fares and fuel costs wallop UAL, US airline stocks; customers to pay price this summer
Further note: I hear that Brit and German rail fans see 2008 as the summer to ride an American trans con with the cheap sleeping cars, to them with their Euros and Pounds, and they want to ride the Empire Builder, 7/8 because they have heard good things about it. This could be the tightest summer ever for seats on that route.
Gilbert B Norman Member # 1541
posted
Folks, I acknowledge these thoughts are a bit off topic, but allow me to note that even if the weak US Dollar means $4.00/ga coming soon to a gas pump near you, higher prices at Wally World, and even increased demand for already scarce Amtrak Sleeping Car space, there are segments of the economy that BENEFIT from the "cheap dollar'. First obviously is any industry connected with tourism - this as noted includes Amtrak. Secondly is US built industrial products; most visible to the man on the street being those of Caterpillar, Boeing, and GE. But there are even surprising segments out there. Doesn't conventional wisdom say that export of US built autos is dead? think again. U.S. Built autos are again being exported, as they are price competitive even with tariffs imposed upon them.
Railroads and maritime companies will benefit from exports arising from the cheap dollar. Rather than having those containers and vessels 'deadheading" back to their Asian ports, they now have loads - and revenue.
So the point is that even if the three Presidential candidates rant and rail away how they will do something about "pain at the pump", the situation is not going to change anytime soon, as the interest groups benefiting from the "cheap dollar' have their lobbies as well.
Geoff M Member # 153
posted
I did indeed see an advert for, I think, a Chrysler last night on TV which are presumably US-built. Holiday travel companies also sometimes mention the strength of the pound over the dollar as another reason to go - though personally not with those particular travel companies that utilise high speed sardine cans as a means of transport.
Although I agree with the comment that certain segments of industry do benefit from tourism, the likes of Boeing and GE are complex examples that both benefit and lose out. The former agrees prices with airlines potentially years before the parts are bought, the planes delivered, and the cash deposited - and a large proportion of parts are NOT US-sourced (the same applies to Airbus in that parts come from around the world). As an example, the 787 Dreamliner consists of foreign-manufactured parts like: - Ailerons and flaps from Australia - Fairings from Canada - Wings from Japan - Horizontal stabilisers from Italy - Doors from France and Sweden - Floor beams from India Seattle merely take the pre-assembled parts and glue them together - in just 3 days! Now, if the Yen went way up and Boeing needed to buy them at the higher price, then Boeing are going to suffer a loss.
GE is different but they are a worldwide organisation with their toes in many different industries - rail just being a part of it - some of which will gain, some of which will lose.
Geoff M.
Doc Brown Member # 4724
posted
Mr. Norman raises some interesting thoughts. I live near the head quarters of Bucyrus International. In the '80s, this company all but died, with only a handful of workers maintaining the plant for many years. In recent years, they are booming. Several new buildings have gone up and they have contracts for mining equipment that ships overseas, for many years to come.
However, I would disagree that any tourist industry will benefit from the weak dollar. While the "hot" destinations like San Diego, LA, Vegas, and Orlando will see an increase in foreign visitors, other places that depend on local vistors will suffer. Northern WI for example, attracts anglers, bicyclists, campers, and general vacationers. Very few of which are coming from overseas. As people modify and even cancel summer travel plans, these "local" tourist destinations will suffer. I dare say that nationally this is a bigger economic loss than what is gained by additional travel to popular destinations. Slightly back on topic, only a handful of WI destinations are served by train, specifically, Portage, Wisconsin Dells, and Winona, MN. Try getting a rental car in these areas on a weekend!
4021North Member # 4081
posted
A leisurely summer trip to the country is a good idea now and then. At the same time, one might question whether the money spent on such luxuries benefits the economy. In other words, which establishments and facilities are economically and morally beneficial to society.
posted